Republicans already planning to rig the next presidential election

[HomerJS]

Republicans who can no longer win in the arena of ideas, can't modify their positions because the crazies would leave them are planning to do the next best thing, cheat.

Plans are underway to change the way electors are awarded in Republican controlled states. The want to change the awarding of electors from winner take all to proportional. This would give a huge boost to Republicans in those states.

Remember gerrymandering allowed Republicans to retain the House even though they got 1.1 million fewer votes and lost 46-54%

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...backs-changes-to-electoral-vote-apportionment

 

[irishScott]

Yes, because gerrymandering is a purely Republican phenomenon.

And actually, I kinda like the idea of major cities not making electoral decisions for an entire state.

 

[JulesMaximus]

If they lose Texas to the Democrats you will never see another Republican president ever.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, because gerrymandering is a purely Republican phenomenon.

And actually, I kinda like the idea of major cities not making electoral decisions for an entire state.

So small states already having a disproportionate say in who becomes the president isn't enough, now you want small areas within each state getting an even more disproportionate say? Exactly how big of a handicap do conservatives need to win?

Everyone here has to see how this is simply a naked power grab. They aren't even trying to be subtle.

I've got a crazy idea, how about the president of America should be the person that the most Americans vote for.

 

[irishScott]

So small states already having a disproportionate say in who becomes the president isn't enough, now you want small areas within each state getting an even more disproportionate say? Exactly how big of a handicap do conservatives need to win?

Everyone here has to see how this is simply a naked power grab. They aren't even trying to be subtle.

I've got a crazy idea, how about the president of America should be the person that the most Americans vote for.

Not a liberal or conservative issue for me. I look at states like Illinois where 1-2 counties make all the decisions, and I see a ton of people who are effectively disenfranchised. Their votes don't even matter some of the time, they never matter. Granted there needs to be some balance so that small states don't have zero say in how things are run, but right now things are quite unfairly slanted in favor of the big cities, who represent no one but themselves.

Electorally speaking, we might as well change the name of Illinois to Chicago, and New York to New-York-City-Albany, among others I could name.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Not a liberal or conservative issue for me. I look at states like Illinois where 1-2 counties make all the decisions, and I see a ton of people who are effectively disenfranchised. Their votes don't even matter some of the time, they never matter. Granted there needs to be some balance so that small states don't have zero say in how things are run, but right now things are quite unfairly slanted in favor of the big cities, who represent no one but themselves.

Electorally speaking, we might as well change the name of Illinois to Chicago, and New York to New-York-City-Albany, among others I could name.

What might work in a small town in middle America doesn't necessarily work in New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles. Welcome to the United States of America.

 

[Incorruptible]

Only simple minded democrats could mistake this for a power grab

 

[Dannar26]

And actually, I kinda like the idea of major cities not making electoral decisions for an entire state.

Let me tell you, as a PA resident, I hear that. Take philly outta the equation, you'd see a different animal...

 

[fskimospy]

Not a liberal or conservative issue for me. I look at states like Illinois where 1-2 counties make all the decisions, and I see a ton of people who are effectively disenfranchised. Their votes don't even matter some of the time, they never matter. Granted there needs to be some balance so that small states don't have zero say in how things are run, but right now things are quite unfairly slanted in favor of the big cities, who represent no one but themselves.

Electorally speaking, we might as well change the name of Illinois to Chicago, and New York to New-York-City-Albany, among others I could name.

The metropolitan areas of those cities comprise the majority of the population of the state. Your argument is that states are prioritizing the needs of where the majority of the people live.

Of course they are.

Rural areas already have enormous advantages in federal representation. My serious question is just how many extra advantages and privileges you think should be provided to nom urban areas.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me tell you, as a PA resident, I hear that. Take philly outta the equation, you'd see a different animal...

Both you guys are basically arguing that if you take the majority of the population out of a state the state would be different.

No duh.

What is happening here is an obvious attempt to make suburban and rural voters' votes count more than those of urban voters. Rural voters already enjoy large advantages in representation. Why do they need even more advantages?

 

[irishScott]

What might work in a small town in middle America doesn't necessarily work in New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles. Welcome to the United States of America.

And vice-versa, which is my point exactly. Our electoral politics should reflect that. They already do in the form of the House of Representatives. Why shouldn't presidential electoral votes work similarly?

We have a population-based electoral system, based on the idea that the largest population centers represent the most people and thus, the majority. But in the age of mega-cities this is ripe for abuse by that majority, something our system was in many ways supposed to prevent. IMO some categorization based on population density would be a good start.

We are the United States of America. The reason for that was the idea that someone in Massachusetts didn't want to be ruled by someone in Georgia. Hell we'd just fought a very bloody war to say we couldn't be ruled by some out-of-touch autocrat in England. This is also the reason the Articles of Confederation came before the Constitution.

Why shouldn't states be based on the same principle? What gives Chicago the moral right to make decisions for everyone in Illinois? Given relative population density and cultural differences, it's identical to someone in New York City making decisions for a farmer in Montana.

 

[irishScott]

Both you guys are basically arguing that if you take the majority of the population out of a state the state would be different.

No duh.

What is happening here is an obvious attempt to make suburban and rural voters' votes count more than those of urban voters. Rural voters already enjoy large advantages in representation. Why do they need even more advantages?

I'd go so far as to spin-off the megacities into their own states, or perhaps simply some new electoral status (District of Columbia-style?). Mega-cities are very much a creation of the 20th century and something our system was never designed to handle. As I pointed out, right now the votes of New York City have no jurisdiction in say, Montana. But yet if you leave New York City and go into rural New York, you're basically giving them jurisdiction over people quite similar to Montanans. I can guarantee rural New Yorkers have less representation than rural Montanans.

 

[Greenman]

That's not cheating. Many would say it's more fair than the winner talk all approach.

 

[irishScott]

That's not cheating. Many would say it's more fair than the winner talk all approach.

Yep. Liberals are all about fairness until it favors conservatives.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd go so far as to spin-off the megacities into their own states, or perhaps simply some new electoral status (District of Columbia-style?). Mega-cities are very much a creation of the 20th century and something our system was never designed to handle. As I pointed out, right now the votes of New York City have no jurisdiction in say, Montana. But yet if you leave New York City and go into rural New York, you're basically giving them jurisdiction over people quite similar to Montanans. I can guarantee rural New Yorkers have less representation than rural Montanans.

First, large state members of all types have less representation than small members. Not only are small states guaranteed one house member, but they get the same senate representation regardless. This further carries over to the electoral college where rural areas get even more extra voting power. Overall, rural areas are given enormously outsized influence relative to their population. Why is creating even more rural states the answer? How many more low population areas do we need with extra electoral representation? How much further do you think we need to stack the deck?

How about we just make the president the guy who gets the most votes.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep. Liberals are all about fairness until it favors conservatives.

How can you complain about fairness in the same thread where you are trying to give rural areas more influence than their population merits on its own?

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once in a presidential election in the last quarter century. Instead of trying to change the rules maybe conservatives should try and address why that keeps happening.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol, righties- voting districts are more important than what the majority want. That makes perfect sense!! Large cities with millions of voters should be second to the thousands of small cities with a smaller proportion of the population! It's about land size people!! Those with more land should be represented more than those that are living close together!



Why do righties hate America?

 

[ivwshane]

Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once in a presidential election in the last quarter century. Instead of trying to change the rules maybe conservatives should try and address why that keeps happening.

Why? It's apparently easier to fix the system than fix the party.

 

[Matt1970]

Republicans have won the popular vote exactly once in a presidential election in the last quarter century. Instead of trying to change the rules maybe conservatives should try and address why that keeps happening.

And yet have won/kept the House majority for 8 out of the last 10 elections picking up 63 seats 2 years ago. You are wlcome to keep thinking the Republicans are all washed up....

 

[Greenman]

How can you complain about fairness in the same thread where you are trying to give rural areas more influence than their population merits on its own?

It's not giving rural areas more influence, it's simply splitting the electoral votes the same as the popular vote. What could be more fair than that?

 

[irishScott]

First, large state members of all types have less representation than small members. Not o ly are small states guaranteed one house member, but they get the same senate representation regardless. This further carries over to the electoral college where rural areas get even more extra voting power. Overall, rural areas are given enormously outsized influence relative to their population. Why is creating even more rural states the answer? How many more low population areas do we need with extra electoral representation? Hoe much further do you think we need to stack the deck?

How about we just make the president the guy who gets the most votes.

Because then you stack the deck in the opposite direction, and smaller (in terms of population) states get no say in it at all. We'd basically be ruled by New York, California, Texas and Florida, with maybe 5 more states as minor powers. The rest would be all but disenfranchised. I have no desire for a feudal electoral system where the big cities electorally control everything between them.

But that's exactly what we're seeing in many states. The electoral votes of New York do not represent New York, they represent New York City and Albany. You could turn the rest of the state into a lifeless wasteland and New York's electoral votes wouldn't change.

Splitting states over significant ideological differences is not unprecedented. Although admittedly under extreme circumstances, West Virginia split from Virginia at the outset of the Civil War.

Doing things solely by population will quickly incur abuse of the majority. I fail to see why such a thing should be present in any aspect of our government.

 

[irishScott]

How can you complain about fairness in the same thread where you are trying to give rural areas more influence than their population merits on its own?

So you're saying if the majority of the US population was concentrated in California, to the point where they had the only meaningful say in all Presidential elections via a winner-take-all system, you'd be fine with California unilaterally electing the President of the United States and the votes of all other states meaning nothing.

 

[Agent11]

The Democrats are giving the Republicans the 2nd amendment on a silver platter.
To even suggest an executive order solution is moronic, especially when the central issue is a constitutional one.

To be honest gun control is one of the few issues I would vote Republican for without a second thought, if I felt the Democrats were pushing for more gun control. Guess what, I'm getting that vibe. I bet others are too. If that flaming pile of shit they passed in New York is any measure of intent by the leadership of the national Democratic party then they will lose my support completely.

Don't blame the Republicans, blame the Democrats for being idiots. They always manage to fuck it up when they have a good thing going.

I did not vote for Obama for gun control. I'm willing to bet if gun control had been on his platform he wouldn't have won the electoral vote.

 

[Jaskalas]

The want to change the awarding of electors from winner take all to proportional. This would give a huge boost to Republicans in those states.

How the hell does that help Republicans, unless it's specifically tied to states they lose?